Gazette readers are more likely to support a ban on the selective breeding of dogs…
August 3, 2016 · OPINION
By Ursula Landsrath
I am writing on behalf of the Animal Rescue Fund to express our deepest concern regarding the hearing of the Fauquier County Zoning Board appeals beginning at 2 p.m. Thursday, August 4 at the Warren Green Building in Warrenton.
The third item on the agenda concerns special permit application 16-005245, requesting authorization to operate a kennel that can accommodate up to 65 dogs and raise up to 48 litters per year.
We know from experience that for every dog purchased from a breeder, one from a shelter or rescue organization will not be adopted, which could result in the dog being euthanized.
We are asking for public participation in these hearings and asking the zoning board to take a close look at this ranch. The question here is: Can we afford to add even more dogs to the overcrowded shelters and rescue organizations that are trying desperately, though often sadly unsuccessfully, to save them?
Please keep in mind the motto of people who care about animal welfare: “Adopt, don’t buy”.
The writer is the president of the Animal Rescue Fund.
martinkus August 16, 2016 at 9:18 p.m.
People are NOT “free” unless government is limited…and government is NOT limited in Fauquier County!
Jim Griffin August 12, 2016 at 9:08 a.m.
Farmbum: It’s a subjective language that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Judgment appeals are not specified in plain language. I completely agree with you in this sense: the activity is either legal or illegal.
farm boom August 12, 2016 at 9:02 am
I just don’t understand people who disagree with what they are allowed to do with their land. You purchased a contract that is supposed to have zoning codes and measures by local and state governments. In addition, public and private easements may exist. Not to mention community associations and what not.
Don’t like the rules? Go try changing them. But placing the onus on the community for feedback isn’t the answer.
Fauquier is absolutely useless when it comes to zoning enforcement. Especially in the rural areas of the department. Maybe if they stepped up enforcement, people wouldn’t see these discrepancies perceived or not to begin with.
Jim Griffin August 9, 2016 at 12:32 p.m.
Should we kick Petco out of town? Deny them zoning for the sale of puppies and “mill” animals?
And the telemarketers? Personal injury lawyers? Tobacconists?
Warrenton even has a commercial license category for fortune tellers. Why? Do we approve of their effectiveness and value? Of course not.
It is not for us to judge the affairs of others as long as their activities are legal, especially with regard to our regulation of the territory.
Ashley August 9, 2016 at 12:13 p.m.
I’m all for people doing what they want with their land. I tried to open a small scale dog boarding facility for 10 dogs and no breeding, but the county said NO. I must have a minimum of 3 acres. But people living next to me with less land can have as many goats, chickens, rabbits and cats as they want. I hate that, as an owner, people tell me what I can do with my land.
Ashley August 9, 2016 at 12:09 p.m.
I have 2 rescue dogs that I got from shelters here in Virginia and I support people getting rescue dogs but I would hate not to be able to choose from purebred dogs that have been around for hundreds of years . I support reputable breeders who do so for the love of the breed. Not places trying to profit from producing over 240 puppies a year. It’s disgusting
Jim Griffin August 7, 2016 at 1:50 p.m.
Freedom is relatively simple and to find a balance we should lean towards freedom. Yes, landowners should fulfill their social, moral and legal responsibilities to the community, but no, the community should not use social policy to guide zoning. In other words, you may not like “puppy mills” or object to adding another dog breeder for whatever reason, but the maximum you should impose is the need to keep these facilities safe, clean and not a burden on others.
To cite a recent example, you can choose not to drink, and you can counsel others against the harms of alcohol or drunk driving, but if someone wants to open a brewery, a winery, a pub or a restaurant that serves alcohol, then the more we should insist that you follow the alcohol rules.
farm boom August 5, 2016 at 5:55 a.m.
There are moral, social and legal responsibilities and rules regarding land ownership. It’s not as simple as some might hope. Question of property rights, yes, both for the landowners and for their neighbors and the community. So you have to find a balance.
Jim Griffin August 4, 2016 at 9:55 p.m.
Agree with Freedom Warrior. As far as possible, the government should not question the use of land by landowners. Free and open markets should prevail as far as we can accommodate them.
freedom warrior August 3, 2016 at 7:48 p.m.
This is a matter of property rights, and the owner/applicant should be allowed to do whatever they want without any limitations. If they want to breed dogs, sell puppies, or even make little Raggedy Anne and Raggedy Andy costumes to dress up little dogs, let them. Free the dog breeders! Finished the tyranny of Fauquier BZA and town planners!
Enter your email address above to start receiving
News updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
More Fauquier news